Yeah, they are just stills from the trailer. Oh, and by the way it looks like marvel_freshman only posted 2 of the 4 stills (most likely because he felt we had seen them before), but still if people want to see the other 2 stills you can view them at this link below.

Not sure if this has been discussed already, but in the last image I wonder who is holding the badly damaged Iron Man helmet. To me I think it might be Pepper Pots, perhaps this is the moment before she suits up in her Rescue Armor.

Surfer

There is wider shot on the web of pepper holding the helmet. that pic is just the close up

I didn't get my panties in a knot about either of those cameos, but I certainly understand the complaints.....*neither* cameo contributed anything to their respective stories whatsoever. And if, god forbid, Stephanie Szostak plays Janet Van Dyne in IM3 slamming Tony Stark against a wall and trying to molest him, I guarowntee you it will contribute nothing to the story whatsoever, either....other than a very awkward moment for folks who don't even know who the hell she's supposed to be, and a collective "wtf?!?!" from the folks who do know.

.......black widow was not a cameo. And you already lose an argument if you call it one

Maybe not a cameo per se, but if you removed BW from IM2, you'd still have the exact same movie. Same as removing Hawkeye from Thor would do exactly nothing to change the story. Thus the complaints about these "guest Avengers" contributing exactly nothing to IM2 and Thor.

Maybe not a cameo per se, but if you removed BW from IM2, you'd still have the exact same movie. Same as removing Hawkeye from Thor would do exactly nothing to change the story. Thus the complaints about these "guest Avengers" contributing exactly nothing to IM2 and Thor.

That is simply wrong. If you were talking Maria Hill, sure, but Widow? No way.

But what did she really do in IM2, other than stand around looking hot? Throw a few cannon fodder grunts around a hallway, hack a computer and (eventually) reveal that she's really a SHIELD spy who's there to....what, spy on Tony Stark? Like he doesn't have enough SHIELD agents spying on him already? Granted, she did a helluva lot more than Clint did in Thor (threaten to fire an arrow, then....not), but the fact remains she was totally nonessential to the plot.

Yeah my bad, I read that as 'Avengers' not IM 2. I thought you were saying she wasn't needed in Avengers.

Still, I would say, while she might not have played a huge role, they were clearly only cameoing her and Hawkeye because they knew they were going to be two main Avengers who weren't getting solo movies prior to Avengers. It was a way of briefly introducing audiences to the characters, no matter how briefly, so that when they showed up in Avengers, there was a context for them.

I'd say Widow was more important than Hawkeye, as she helped bridge the Nick Fury stuff and showed a strong SHIELD presence, which was the main thing that needed establishing in IM 2 since it was one of the things that threaded all the solo movies together, for any non Marvel fans.

IM 2 is a controversial movie but I don't think people realise how important it was as a bridging story to the overall continuity. It's like the episode in the middle of a season that people complain was boring, but in actual fact, it's narrative purpose is largely in the set up. It had it's fingers in many pies and was setting A LOT of things up.. Thor, Cap, Nick Fury/Shield's involvement etc.

I think it should get a lot more credit than it seems to get because I think it definitely smoothed the way for what could have been a rough landing with Cap and Thor.

The point is that these characters aren't being introduced early for the sake of the film they are in but for the sake of the collective universe they are part of. Introducing these characters in an earlier film allows the audience to be introduced to them in a rather natural way. It's all about the bigger picture.

The point is that these characters aren't being introduced early for the sake of the film they are in but for the sake of the collective universe they are part of. Introducing these characters in an earlier film allows the audience to be introduced to them in a rather natural way. It's all about the bigger picture.

But, coming back around to the "Is Stephanie Szostak playing Wasp?" stuff, there is no conceivable good reason for Janet Van Dyne to be introduced here, in this manner. The "rather natural way" for her to be introduced is in Ant-Man or Avengers, where she belongs.

Janet Van Dyne is permanently attached to Hank Pym's mythos. They are as inseparable as Laurel and Hardy, Lois and Clark, Ben and Jerry, Jay and Silent Bob....

I didn't get my panties in a knot about either of those cameos, but I certainly understand the complaints.....*neither* cameo contributed anything to their respective stories whatsoever. And if, god forbid, Stephanie Szostak plays Janet Van Dyne in IM3 slamming Tony Stark against a wall and trying to molest him, I guarowntee you it will contribute nothing to the story whatsoever, either....other than a very awkward moment for folks who don't even know who the hell she's supposed to be, and a collective "wtf?!?!" from the folks who do know.

I don't think that character would go that far as to molest him, I know you're exaggerating a bit, but still. No matter which character it is I think the thought that she's attracted to Tony only crosses her mind because they're close for some other reason. If you're saying it would be out of character for someone to shove him with that sole purpose, then that would be. But we don't know the full context of that scene yet. Jan's been known to be a bit flirty at times I should add. The person in that clip seems like they're attracted to him, yes, but to me she seems pissed off at Stark for another reason. I doubt the person is shoving him only because they wanna get close. Like she's frustrated he has some info or something he's not saying so she's trying to get a result but realizes she's attracted to him. That's pretty much the only reason that in my long ass theory Hank is already missing somewhere for a long time. Adding weight to why she might be attracted to Tony. I dunno the Shield show has some time to cover AIM and Shield's past when they get started, if something Pym did for AIM in the 80's changed things

Maybe not a cameo per se, but if you removed BW from IM2, you'd still have the exact same movie. Same as removing Hawkeye from Thor would do exactly nothing to change the story. Thus the complaints about these "guest Avengers" contributing exactly nothing to IM2 and Thor.

um not really..... She had actual legit plot points.... More than even Happy.....

I don't think that character would go that far as to molest him, I know you're exaggerating a bit, but still. No matter which character it is I think the thought that she's attracted to Tony only crosses her mind because they're close for some other reason. If you're saying it would be out of character for someone to shove him with that sole purpose, then that would be. But we don't know the full context of that scene yet. Jan's been known to be a bit flirty at times I should add. The person in that clip seems like they're attracted to him, yes, but to me she seems pissed off at Stark for another reason. I doubt the person is shoving him only because they wanna get close. Like she's frustrated he has some info or something he's not saying so she's trying to get a result but realizes she's attracted to him. That's pretty much the only reason that in my long ass theory Hank is already missing somewhere for a long time. Adding weight to why she might be attracted to Tony. I dunno the Shield show has some time to cover AIM and Shield's past when they get started, if something Pym did for AIM in the 80's changed things

The SHIELD show probably won't debut until at least fall of 2013, so IM3 will come out long before then. If they're waiting to do backstory on Hank Pym for the TV show, then regular (non-fanboy) audiences won't have that info going into IM3, so....again.....throwing Janet into the mix makes no sense.

The thing is, if it's just a cameo, you lose NOTHING by putting it in there.

Everyone complains about the Hawkeye cameo in Thor but that thing barely distracted at all. It was a neat little way of making someone who could otherwise have just been a normal SHIELD agent a character who would be relevant for the future.

Now, fast forward to post Avengers land, and i think the audience is WELL and truly savvy to the idea of the MCU and the wide reaching universe involved. If you throw in a character who doesn't DETRACT from the plot but who will clearly be more relevant later, it's only going to encourage people to invest further in the MCU and find out more, like A LOT of people did with Thanos at the end of Avengers.

um not really..... She had actual legit plot points.... More than even Happy.....

What did she ever do?
1) Play the potential curvy love interest - completely unnecesary storyline, ultimately underdeveloped by the scriptwriters.
2) Spy on Tony - he is on the news 24/7 and cannot stop talking about himself, there is hardly any need for a personalised spy.
3) Provide temporal cure? Tony could have just found one himself. In fact, it looked borderline stupid that he had not investigated antidotes for heavy metal poisoning.
4) Get into Hammer headquarters? It would have not even been necesary if JARVIS had been the one to hack the War Machine suit, which again would have been the cooler solution.

She was in IM2 for 2 reasons: provide breasty fanboy fodder and be a setup for another movie without adding value to the IM2 itself. Not at all a cameo, just an completely unnecesary character.